the truth about weight

[pliptrot]

hopefully preaching to the choir.......

http://www.there-cycling.co.uk/blog/gen ... -bears.php

[531colin]

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=45056

[Ribblehead]

I decided to try it:

http://bikecalculator.com/wattsUS.html

I used all the default values, but changed setup B to 'drops' rather than 'hoods'. The result was a 17% reduction in the power required.

That suits me, as I usually blame my sluggish progress on the fact that I rarely use the drops, unless I've got the head wind from hell

[Brucey]

hopefully preaching to the choir.......

http://www.there-cycling.co.uk/blog/gen ... -bears.php

the calculations are based on riding on the flat, at constant speed with just 100W power.

The weight, the tyres and the riding position are varied. Of these the small change in riding position makes most difference I would expect. The weight cannot make any significant difference unless the bike is accelerated; the extra weight adds but a tiny amount to the rolling resistance which is itself the lesser part of the overall resistance.

Applying more power would show a bigger difference BTW.

Overall the calculations resemble a windless day in the fens; a highly improbably occurence IME...

cheers

[pliptrot]

well, everyone; quite. Windless or otherwise, on flat ground the extreme examples suggested indicate the futility of chasing weight savings. Do the sums for uphills and the current obsession with weight still makes little sense. I posted the same thing on some other forums (fora?) which attract more earnest cyclists. The abuse has already begun.....

[AndyB]

Fantastic. Come along to the Dolomites with us this summer, and you can carry our camping gear while we ride unladen. I'm sure you'll keep up...

[Smut Pedaller]

I've written about this a lot of times... here as well http://smutpedaller.blogspot.com/2011/1 ... issue.html

yes weight does make a difference but not much compared to aerodynamics which is by far the biggest factor. People will pay hundreds and thousands of £ just to drop 50g off their bike, the amount of obsessiveness typical cyclists have with weight is out of proportion with it's actual significance in performance. If you are climbing say in the Alps, sure go nuts, but most riding is typically done uphill, downhill and on the flat.

[Valbrona]

hopefully preaching to the choir.......

Yup.

[Mick F]

hopefully preaching to the choir.......

"Yup" as well.

I agree that weight isn't as critical as it is made out to be, but I certainly agree with this sentiment!

Fantastic. Come along to the Dolomites with us this summer, and you can carry our camping gear while we ride unladen. I'm sure you'll keep up...

Excellent.

[PW]

Depends where I'm going. Cambridge I'll take the kitchen sink, 50 miles round the Peak then the lighter the better.

[JohnCKirk]

For anyone who hasn't seen it, this video is quite funny:
http://youtu.be/GMCkuqL9IcM

Sample quote: "Is this the lightest bell you have?"

[Nettled Shin]

Uphill sections are only bad because you spend disproportionately more time in them, so you can't make up the difference by going faster down the other side to recover your flat-terrain average speed. I'm sure I could configure a concealed bottom bracket motor drive to help even out my speed for very little energy input. Does anyone know where they can be bought?

[jamesofyorkshire]

For anyone who hasn't seen it, this video is quite funny:
http://youtu.be/GMCkuqL9IcM

Sample quote: "Is this the lightest bell you have?"
---------------------------------------------------------

Excellent vid!!!! That's cyclists!!!!

I have a 38lbs heavy-duty (Silkroad) touring bike....and a 24lbs Giant FCR 1............both flat-barred....similar riding position. When riding the FCR, I'm 20-25% faster on the same circuits here in the Yorkshire Dales (hilly!). Circuits are 20-60 miles. The touring bike is way more comfortable........but I get around much faster on the FCR so spend less time on the unforgiving alu frame/forks (and vasectomy-not-needed Toupe saddle).